Cog wrote:Never met a Democrat yet who didn't want to increase taxes on something or somebody. Must be some sort of prerequisite to be a Democrat. Course they love more government and more government requires more taxes. God forbid that anyone could engage in commerce or consumption without a tax on it.

I’m not for or against raising taxes, there is probably a justification for tax adjustment.

OTOH if you think about it buying useless crap you don’t need it much like a voluntary tax. Just to pick on a ridiculious example why would a sane person buy pre-ripped $80 jeans when you can get perfectly fine jeans for $30? Sure it’s a nod to “style” but for too many of those folks sporting “stylish pre-ripped”jeans their personal style would be better improved by not wolfing down that second Big Mac with cheese and bacon.

Let’s face it, humans aren’t very smart and allow media advertising to make most of their decisions.

But look on the bright side, we do sometimes show glimmers of individual thought. Think about the Trump election, despite being outspend over 2:1 in advertising and having the media full on trumpeting how Hillary was gonna have a blow out, Trump won. It’s a great example of how someone can appeal to folks directly. It may be an ugly example but it’s a clear one, Madison Ave. is influential but not omnipotent.

Before we worry about modifying taxes to fix the problem we should have a conversation with the American Public about what the problem is. We don’t all have to agree in great detail, just get into the ballpark that allows us to move forward.

Poling indicates that most of the public believe AGW is an issue. The problem is how do we do something about it that makes sense. Now if we combine it with other issues where there are common solutions you can make a convincing case.

We have a trade deficit.We have large governmental debt.We have excessive individual debt.We have lost manufacturing.China et al are releasing much pollution.Folks in the USA are commuting sucide at a high rate and doing excessive drugs.

SOLUTION:Change our focus from buying crap to be happy to finding happiness in our circle.Stop buying trivial imported goods, buy quality clothing, make stuff last.Trade deficits goes down. Shipping pollution goes down. Infrastructure lasts longer.We pay off personal debts, have more money for retirement.Bring manufacturing home, make quality goods, in a clean manner.Less crap being produced reduces stress on resources.More folks in the USA have decent jobs, less debt, are more hopeful, less suicide, less drug use.

If you want to address climate change then you have to convienced both the left and right to get aboard.

Of course. I was just being funny.

Extracting climate change from being a partisan issue was something I always believed natural consequences would do since rising sea levels, droughts and all the rest does not select for political ideology. There is this stubborn reality though where tribal loyalty is not based on rational analysis but rather emotional alliance.

Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Apeblog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/website: http://www.mounttotumas.com

Newfie wrote:OTOH if you think about it buying useless crap you don’t need it much like a voluntary tax. Just to pick on a ridiculious example why would a sane person buy pre-ripped $80 jeans when you can get perfectly fine jeans for $30?

Who decides what is useless crap?Who decides what is a legitimate need and what constitutes "quality."Sounds like, as the thread title implies, get rid of capitalism and markets, put someone in charge of what kind of pants we can buy and Voilå, all our problems are solved!Call this the grumpy old many school of Marxism.

What if someone really likes ripped jeans? Or sailboats? Should they be allowed to own them even though others see them as ridiculous extravagance? Should they be shamed? Ostracised? The mere fact that dozens and hundreds of jeans brands exist in a market economy tells you one thing, people value them enough to trade hours of their lives to own them. In a capitalist economy that makes them "perfectly fine" regardless of your judgement.

I've no doubt excess choice causes mental stress, it's been written about for years. How does one choose among the 3 dozen jeans on the shelf? How can one avoid the feeling you chose the wrong style of tear in your jeans? But, that book was written 20 years ago and hasn't done a thing to reduce the number of things on the market —even though it argues less choice makes people happier. It's call The Paradox of Choice. It and dozens of psyc studies disproves your argument that all you have to do is show people how stupid they are and all of a sudden they are as smart as you.

As for the effectiveness of advertising, you are arguing both sides of the fence. You say we all need is a campaign to make people smarter but then argue trump was outspent 2 to 1 but won anyway. You can't have it both ways. Either marketing is the downfall of humanity because of its mesmerizing ability to make people into zombie-shoppers, or it's just another con. I've been in marketing for decades, spending, buying, brokering millions of dollars in ad money over the years and can tell you that most is a waste. People just don't have enough head space to keep track.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)

Ibon,I quite agree. Sorry for missing the humor bit, so much nuance is lost in writing. Our inner selves project our own meaning on the words of others. Knowing that does not stop me from DOING that. I’ll eventuality get it, in another 50 or 80 years! LOL

The US government can do about anything it wants with just changes in the tax codes. Tax activities they want to curtail more, and tax less or even subsidize investments they want you to make. The reason stocks are not taxed for capital gains until you sell them is to induce you to leave your money invested in the market thereby allowing the economy to grow. You feel you are a free man, investing your money where the return is the greatest ,when really most of the decision has been made for you by the IRS shaping the playing field and writing the rules of the game.

I was taught there were such things as “natural monopolies”, e.g. the gas and electric company. These entries should be considered for a socialist solution, it montored for performance. The current lack of investment in the electric grid is a prime example of why this is so. On the other hand the Philadelphia Gas Works, when fun by the City, became so inept it would routinely take 2-3 months to get your gas turned on. It has been privatized and that seems to have cleared up the problem. So this points to some need of accountably beyond the quarterly reports. The PR Electric utility is another example. Detroit Water yet another. So if it is “Socialisim” it needs to be Socialisim with accountability. That needs refinement.

Manufacturing should remain Capitalist. I can’t imagine he government taking over Ford.

Health Care might be a blended solution. Basic health care (annual visits, basic dental/vision, emergency room, etc) would be a social program, but services not covered (plastic surgery, cosmetic dentistry, etc.) would be in the Capitalist mold.

I think the Consumerist are hiding under the Capitalist fig leaf and need to be exposed. We cry a lot about the 1%ers but they are where they are mostly by skimming on our transactions. Want to skewer a 1%er? Easy, save money. Want do in a shiek? Easy, reduce energy use.

Ibon wrote:More importantly, would we ever be able to accept this as not being a move toward communism or fascism or any other flavor of government control and accept it as an ecological necessity?

Maybe.

Not so far.O pushed thru 4000 environmental regs and Rs responded with trump who installs FF lobbyists in as head of the EPA and says the noise from windmills gives you cancer.The Rs don't believe in CC, don't know if it is because of money or "god" or ignorance or spite or just because their overlords tell them so.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)

His Chamberlin moment was when he touted the Paris Accords as some kind of solution.

His “Big Climate Change Policy Speech” was as much about pushing big gas and oil as about climate change.

He did virtually nothing from the bully pulpit to move public opinion on climate change.

Trump is no better except for the fact that he is honestly a denier.

You appear to be pushing the idea that had your side won things would be better. But your side DID WIN, in 2008. The Dems had the House, Senate, and Presidency for 4 years and did damn little, no substantive CC legislature, which is why Obama had 4,000 executive orders, he could not get legislation through his own party. And now we have the ridiculious GND. A disaster for the CC movement because it wraps it all around social justice issues and mega spending projects for which we will just print money.

No, enough of the partisan crap from both sides. Something new is needed. The USA is following the UK down the road of failed state.

The topic of the thread is “Ending CC Requires Ending Capitalisim.”

Let’s get back on topic. If you want to post about the Partisan Divide we have a thread for that.

Newfie: I think you should back off on the moderator stuff.Most of the topics here are interrelated both to cause and possible solutions and your version of what is appropriate to a particular subject is not the be all and end all of the possibilities. You intrude before it is necessary and usually just just end or putting a damper on a discussion just when it was getting interesting or stopping it entirely. If you want to do us a service go ban all of the ETP idiocy..

OK guys, I’m somewhat sensitive to every thread turning into a partisan pissing match. And elsewhere on site I’ve noted user complaints about the partisanship and bickering.

What I’ve been attempting to do is quell that rhetoric so that it does not foreclose wider discussion. Introducing extraneous political comments is in itself a type of “moderation” because it draws the discussion off topic, picks scabs off old wounds. Not helpful. We need to make room for folks who want to discuss other things.

You are correct my on thread opinions are not special in any sense and they carry no intrinsic weight from position. My thoughts and arguments should be treated as any other poster. Feel free to disagree and educate me, it’s why we are here.

PM me if you wish to discuss further. I’ll reply at my first opportunity.

Having said the above I owe the board, and Pops in particular, an apology.

Up thread I introduced the 2016 as an example of advertising limitations. It was a good example but far too close to the political rhetoric I myself am complaing about. So of course the thread went the way it did. In short I contributed to the problem I’m bitching about.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)